Youtube is blocked at work, but my understanding was that the mass farming of cattle and the methane they produce was as impactful as the CO2 attributed to fos

Youtube is blocked at work, but my understanding was that the mass farming of cattle and the methane they produce was as impactful as the CO2 attributed to fossil fuels in terms of increasing greenhouse gasses. Some googling suggests I am wrong on that though as they claim agriculture is responsible for just 18% of the greenhouse gas (of course one gets wildly differing values depending where you look). My comment wasn't meant to imply that fossil fuels/CO2 isn't relevant, but it's not the whole story. I was clearly wrong as to the extent of agricultural impact :) As for the rest of it, I don't deny climate change. I don't pretend that humans have no impact the rate of change. I get uncomfortable with the way it's a "cause", by the way a statistician who questions methodology is attacked not answered etc etc. It makes me doubt the numbers, not the underlying principles (which are experimentally demonstrable)